"Priest Shortage Leaves Faithful Alone on Sickbeds"

[WhollyRoaminCatholic]

I doubt the states ever had a law like that. Maybe old europe but still it sounds fishy.

Agreed.  Most of US history has been either anti-Catholic or disinterested in Catholics.  It's hard to imagine such a law anywhere here.

[SaintRafael]

I have more than once considered becoming a priest even in the NO Church just to be able to try and help save souls, but I just couldn't bring myself to go to a NO Mass never mind say a NO Mass.

Technically no Novus Ordo priest can be forced to say the new Mass.

I remember that the nine cardinal commission that Pope John Paul II set up in the 80's included this in their findings. The whole commission and their report that the Latin Mass had never been abrogated was famously kept secret from the public for 20 years until Summorum Pontificum freed the truth.

Every Latin rite priest has the right to say the Roman rite of the Tridentine Latin Mass and the right not to ever say the Novus Ordo if they don't want to. The Church needs courageous priests to stand up, invoke their rights, and say that they don't have to and won't celebrate the New Mass.

[JayneK]

This reminds me of a question I have.  I saw some comments on Fr Z's blog a while ago where people were making a distinction between lay people distributing Communion at Mass (very bad) and lay people taking Communion to the sick (OK).  Is this a traditional or conservative Catholic view?  Both kinds write in to Fr. Z.

[SaintRafael]

This reminds me of a question I have.  I saw some comments on Fr Z's blog a while ago where people were making a distinction between lay people distributing Communion at Mass (very bad) and lay people taking Communion to the sick (OK).  Is this a traditional or conservative Catholic view?  Both kinds write in to Fr. Z.

Lay people taking Communion to sick people is only ok because it is done in some cases out of necessity. This has been traditionally also been the role of a priest. Since the collapse of the priesthood, there are not a lot of priests like there used to be, so lay people help out priests in this area.

It is tolerated, but not the ideal. In most cases, priests are just too lazy to do it themselves. A couple of centuries ago, a priest would do it himself, riding on horseback visiting all the local villages. Now in our moder age, we have cars, but priests are unwilling to do what priests used to do, even though technology has made it easier.

[JayneK]

Lay people taking Communion to sick people is only ok because it is done in some cases out of necessity.

Somebody was saying that lay people who believe that it is wrong to receive Communion in the hand are being hypocrites if they take Communion to the sick because they have to touch the consecrated Host.  I was pretty sure that this was a wrong line of reasoning but do not know enough to counter it. 

[spasiisochrani]

A "community celebration"?  Someone, please shoot me. 

Preferably in the presence of a priest.

[littlerose]

There are instructions from a Doctor of the Church for the proper reception of communion in the hand, I saw them quoted somewhere, I think it was St John Chrysostrom.  I think that while it is preferable to stick to the old way, this is not one of the big problems that came out of VII but the bigger problem is the failure of the vocations to keep up with the needs and it should not be such an obstacle to receive the Last Rites (final confession & communion) whether from priests or special laity.  It should  be acceptable to receive from special deacons and I am sure every parish could provide a few dedicated individuals who would give that service.

My parents were both able to receive the Last Rites in the traditional way, being that they died in New Hampshire where the French have quietly preserved a stronger attitude about these things, but I also have a lot of respect for the way the deacons I met while planning their funerals were very attentive to Traditional principles. They not only respected our parents' wishes, they were competent to deliver.

I think we need to spend less time complaining about N-O flaws and more time supportiing and encouraging the development of competent lay deacons and "third order" consecrated people while the Holy Spirit pulls a new generation of young men into the priesthood.  What resurgence of vocations begins now will take years to work through our damaged seminary system :(

[littlerose]

Lay people taking Communion to sick people is only ok because it is done in some cases out of necessity.

Somebody was saying that lay people who believe that it is wrong to receive Communion in the hand are being hypocrites if they take Communion to the sick because they have to touch the consecrated Host.  I was pretty sure that this was a wrong line of reasoning but do not know enough to counter it. 

Here is an article explaining it: http://jloughnan.tripod.com/commhand.htm

Before Vatican II, it had been the custom for almost 1,500 years in the Catholic Church for those receiving Holy Communion to do so kneeling. The Host was received on the tongue, and the priest said: Corpus Domini Nostri Iesu Christi custodiat animam tuam in vitam aeternam, Amen. "May the Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve your soul unto life everlasting. Amen".

These words and the tradition of receiving the Sacrament kneeling date from the time of Pope St Gregory the Great (590-604 A.D.) and the custom of receiving the Host on the tongue can be traced even further back — at least to the time of Pope Agapitus who died in 536 A.D. A Council held in Rouen in the 7th century forbids it to be given in any other way. Practice seems to have varied from country to country up until this definitive ruling in 880 A.D.

During the first four centuries, however, as Communion time drew near, the cantor at the Mass would call out Sancta Sanctis, "Holy Things to the holy," and the faithful would approach the altar, bowed but standing.

At that time the universal custom in the Church was to receive the Sacred Species in the hand.

Thus St Ambrose (339-397 A.D.) Bishop of Milan, asked the Emperor Theodosius how he dared to receive Holy Communion with his hand dripping with the blood of the innocent, after the massacre of Thessalonica. St Augustine (354-430 A.D.) whom St Ambrose himself baptised, writes of a Bishop who used to receive Communion in the hand from a priest who in his turn received Communion in his hand from the Bishop. St Basil (330-379 A.D.) writes of a priest who places portion of the Eucharist in the hands of a communicant who then puts it in his mouth with his own hand. St John Chrysostom (345-407 A.D.) speaks of the importance of the faithful approaching Holy Communion with clean hands, because of the sacredness of what they are going to touch. St John Damascene (675-750 A.D.) required his Catholics to put their hands in the form of a cross, receiving the Sacrament in the palm of the right hand, supported by the left.
 

[JayneK]

Lay people taking Communion to sick people is only ok because it is done in some cases out of necessity.

Somebody was saying that lay people who believe that it is wrong to receive Communion in the hand are being hypocrites if they take Communion to the sick because they have to touch the consecrated Host.  I was pretty sure that this was a wrong line of reasoning but do not know enough to counter it. 

Here is an article explaining it: http://jloughnan.tripod.com/commhand.htm

After the section you quote this article says:

For pastoral reasons the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council decreed that we should return to the earlier custom of receiving Holy Communion in the hand . . . .

That did not happen.  As far as I understand it, there was never a teaching that we should receive in the hand.  It was something that could be allowed by the bishops if they felt it necessary in their dioceses.  It was not taught as the preferred practice. 

Getting this wrong reduces the credibility of the article.

[littlerose]

Lay people taking Communion to sick people is only ok because it is done in some cases out of necessity.

Somebody was saying that lay people who believe that it is wrong to receive Communion in the hand are being hypocrites if they take Communion to the sick because they have to touch the consecrated Host.  I was pretty sure that this was a wrong line of reasoning but do not know enough to counter it. 

Here is an article explaining it: http://jloughnan.tripod.com/commhand.htm

After the section you quote this article says:

For pastoral reasons the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council decreed that we should return to the earlier custom of receiving Holy Communion in the hand . . . .

That did not happen.  As far as I understand it, there was never a teaching that we should receive in the hand.  It was something that could be allowed by the bishops if they felt it necessary in their dioceses.  It was not taught as the preferred practice. 

Getting this wrong reduces the credibility of the article.

No, JayneK, it sdoes not reduce the credibilty. Those of us who have relatives in the priesthood know that many priests find it very difficult to face  hundreds of people in a row opening our mouths. It has always been a source of private suffering for priests and when the door was opened to the standing postions of receiving in the hands, many priests pushed to have that done so that they could avoid the  dailoy experience of serving communion the old fashioned way. I do not criticize them because as it says, this is a small matter that does not affect the Holiness of the sacrament.

What many people may have problems with  is that there is a separate issue of how seriously do N-O parishes enforce proper decorum in the serving of communion from the standing position? It is easier for that style to be done in a less solemn manner. That is probably the main problem, as far as i can see. But it is easily surmountable with the right attitude even though the kneeling position is better for   spiritual purposes, it should not be an obstacle to the sick receing communion, thathas never been a vallid obstacle.